Caddis Pupae

[Peter Charles]

Looking for photos of real caddis pupea of the more common genera like
Hydropsyche, Cheumatopsyche, and Rhyacophilia.

I've done the Google image scan and only dredged up a few worthwhile
candidates.

The goal is to be able to reproduce the most important species as
Yorkshire style wets for fishing on a swung line.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Thomas Littleton]

"Peter Charles" > wrote in message
...
>
> Looking for photos of real caddis pupea of the more common genera like
> Hydropsyche, Cheumatopsyche, and Rhyacophilia.
>
> I've done the Google image scan and only dredged up a few worthwhile
> candidates.
>
> The goal is to be able to reproduce the most important species as
> Yorkshire style wets for fishing on a swung line.
>
> Peter
>
> turn mailhot into hotmail to reply
>
> Visit The Streamer Page at
http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Peter, do you have a copy of the LaFontaine book:Caddisflies??
I could scan stuff in ,but the colors will get screwed up for sure.
Tom

[Peter Charles]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:57:10 GMT, "Thomas Littleton"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Charles" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Looking for photos of real caddis pupea of the more common genera like
>> Hydropsyche, Cheumatopsyche, and Rhyacophilia.
>>
>> I've done the Google image scan and only dredged up a few worthwhile
>> candidates.
>>
>> The goal is to be able to reproduce the most important species as
>> Yorkshire style wets for fishing on a swung line.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> turn mailhot into hotmail to reply
>>
>> Visit The Streamer Page at
>http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html
>
>Peter, do you have a copy of the LaFontaine book:Caddisflies??
>I could scan stuff in ,but the colors will get screwed up for sure.
> Tom
>

Thanks. Yes I do, plus a few others and the pupae section is always
thin. LaFontaine as a good descriptive section on behaviour but he's
very thin on colour plates. I have one picture:

http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/cadpupa3a.jpg

that I found on the net -- you can see what I'm trying to work with.

Basically, three types of flies on the drawing board: classic
Yorkshire wets but more tuned to colour and size, a dead drift pupal
imitation, and a good emerger using CDC.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Mike Connor]

"Peter Charles" > wrote in message
...
>
> Looking for photos of real caddis pupea of the more common genera like
> Hydropsyche, Cheumatopsyche, and Rhyacophilia.
>

Search on "Sedge" pupae. that should turn up a bit more.

TL
MC

[Sandy Birrell]

Mike Connor wrote:
> "Peter Charles" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Looking for photos of real caddis pupea of the more common genera like
>> Hydropsyche, Cheumatopsyche, and Rhyacophilia.
>>
>
> Search on "Sedge" pupae. that should turn up a bit more.
>
> TL
> MC

Also try "sedge larvae" and here is a start using "Trichoptera larvae".

http://images.google.com/images?q=Trichoptera%20larvae&num=50&hl=en&lr=lang_en&newwindow=1&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wi



HTH.



--

Don`t Worry, Be Happy
Sandy
--
E-Mail:-
Website:- http://www.ftscotland.co.uk
Looking for a webhost? Try http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=2966019

[Peter Charles]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:15:34 +0100, "Mike Connor"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Charles" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Looking for photos of real caddis pupea of the more common genera like
>> Hydropsyche, Cheumatopsyche, and Rhyacophilia.
>>
>
>Search on "Sedge" pupae. that should turn up a bit more.
>
>TL
>MC
>

Thanks for the suggestions guys, however, I'm hoping to find
entomology sites rather than fly tying sites so I can find the
pictures of the actual bugs rather than somebody's idea of what the
fly should be.

LaFontaine talks about how he found himself totally at odds with
conventional wisdom re: caddis emergence. Frankly, I think we
(speaking of the fly fishing community) has done a **** poor job of
understanding the pupal stages of various caddis genera. The fly
fishers of a 100 years ago or more put the time in to learn what works
in the way of Yorkshire wets, etc. but a lot of the patterns today
don't square with what I've read from LaFontaine or from entomology
sites.

As an example, there are a helluva lot of patterns for caddis larvae
but excpet for Rhyacophilia and a few other free swimmers, most
species are net or case so they're not available to trout in a free
drifting form except at dawn or dusk when the biological drift occurs.
Sure the larval flies will take fish but a dead drifted pupa, fished
at the right depth will take a helluva lot more if it's fished during
an emergence.

Nor do we spend enough time with diving females. My very first trout
was taken on an EHC when I was dragging it behind me as I waded
upstream. Hardly the romantic image of one's first trout, but an
object lesson that cadddis don't behave like mayflies. I've since
taken a lot of fish on diving caddis.

Caddis emerge sporadically, rather than as a blizzard, so our window
with caddis is much larger than with mayflies. They hatch over a much
larger period of time, plus they live for weeks in the adult form so
for fly fishers, they offer a lot of opportunities. It's worth doing
the research.

Last year, I put some effort into developing caddis wets with a bit of
success. It was enough to encourage further efforts into producing a
class of flies specifically targeting caddis emergence on either the
swung line or the sunk line. Hopefully they'll take a few fish this
year too.



Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Tim Lysyk]

Peter Charles wrote:
>
>>"Peter Charles" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Looking for photos of real caddis pupea of the more common genera like
>>>Hydropsyche, Cheumatopsyche, and Rhyacophilia.
>>>
>>
>>Search on "Sedge" pupae. that should turn up a bit more.
>>
>>TL
>>MC
>>
>
>
> Thanks for the suggestions guys, however, I'm hoping to find
> entomology sites rather than fly tying sites so I can find the
> pictures of the actual bugs rather than somebody's idea of what the
> fly should be.

try http://www.usask.ca/biology/skabugs/caddis/trichop.html . There is a
picture of a pupae on this page. Pictures of caddis puape are not easy
to come bu; there are a few in the aquatic insect texts I use. I think
the photo on the above link is pretty representative...they look lke
like fat larvae with stumpy wings anbd long legs.

Tim Lysyk

[Thomas Littleton]

"Peter Charles" > wrote in message
...
..
> Sure the larval flies will take fish but a dead drifted pupa, fished
> at the right depth will take a helluva lot more if it's fished during
> an emergence.

admitted, but has LaFontaine's sparkle pupae been improved upon??
The colors might be tinkered with a bit, but a lot of what a fish seems to
see of pupae is brightness and reflected light.
>
> Nor do we spend enough time with diving females. My very first trout
> was taken on an EHC when I was dragging it behind me as I waded
> upstream. Hardly the romantic image of one's first trout, but an
> object lesson that cadddis don't behave like mayflies. I've since
> taken a lot of fish on diving caddis.

I'm convinced many,if not most, of the trout I've taken on traditional
winged wets we due to trout looking for diving female caddis.
>
.. It's worth doing
> the research.

It's damn near a religion to do so where I live.....the Tulpehocken is a
tail water, and as such, has a lot of different caddis of all sizes.
Imitation of them at several stages is a necessity to succeed much of the
season.
>
> Last year, I put some effort into developing caddis wets with a bit of
> success. It was enough to encourage further efforts into producing a
> class of flies specifically targeting caddis emergence on either the
> swung line or the sunk line. Hopefully they'll take a few fish this
> year too.

Have I unloaded any Submergers on you?? If not, remind me at Penn's.
Or, as an old Jefferson Airplane song was titled, "Something of Value will
come to you Shortly"(or, something like that). At any rate, I want you to
give me an A/B trial with your technique versus your emerger and female
diver imitations. You might like them.

Tom

[Larry L]

"Tim Lysyk" > wrote

.. I think
> the photo on the above link is pretty representative...they look lke like
> fat larvae with stumpy wings anbd long legs.
>


That is my impression also ... and correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think
entomologists would seek out the pupa for identification purposes so they
are more likely to have pictures of cases and larva

Good images, even a good real time, head bent to the water, glimpse of any
of the transitional
periods of emergence are damn hard to come by ... harder than trout<G>

You can cut pupa out of cases and get things that look like
the picture in Tim's link. "Caddis and the angler"
has a picture or two, and there are Schwiebert's drawings in
"Nymphs" All look much the same in basic form. The only "in the water"
pictures I have are in "Emergers" by Swisher and Richards ... and they are
very poor and B&W but suggest exactly the same form.

But the question is if that is what they look like when available
to the fish. As you know, LaFontaine and others say "no" that a big shiny
bubble is more like what the trout see. I have never been able to
confirm that, and have never seen anything 'real' that actually looks
like a sparkle pupa or Iris caddis etc but I've never SCUBA dived and
tried to get the fish's eye view.

Let us know if you find any good pictures, Peter, of emerging mayflies too,
if you happen on them.

Oh, and I have seined small cased caddis from the daytime drift on a couple
spring creeks ( near the surface!) and Lawson and Harrop both report
fish "rising" to them on the HFork, although I've never been able to confirm
that...... To me this remains like floating snails, I've seen 'em, the
'experts' say trout eat 'em, it makes sense, but I ain't caught a fish on
one yet<G>

[Larry L]

"Peter Charles" > wrote

>
> Thanks for the suggestions guys, however, I'm hoping to find
> entomology sites rather than fly tying sites so I can find the
> pictures of the actual bugs rather than somebody's idea of what the
> fly should be.
>

In my limited experience you are dead on track .... catching the real bug
and using that as a model is FAR more satisfying than imitating an imitation
..... but 99% of flies are developed the second way, varying existing
patterns without ever looking at a bug.

After your research, you'll likely end up with something similar to existing
flies but you'll fish it with much more confidence ... the key ingredient of
any pattern, imho.

I'm just started on my own selection of "copied from real models" patterns,
maybe 1/3 the bugs I fish over ... it is very worth the effort.

The first was a Trico spinner 10 years ago. After a long not very
successful day watching fish reject a store bought poly wing spinner on
Silver Creek I broke down, seined some bugs, got out the magnifier and ...
Whoa, Homer .. they don't look that much like the store bought pattern. I
dug through my stuff, tied up a couple different experiments and the next
day I hooked fish nearly at will, even broke one fish off then landed him
later with my new pattern still stuck in his jaw and got my fly back. I
got so damn arrogant that I stopped on Kilpatrick Bridge and told some guy
to pick out a fish and I'd catch it ... did catch the one he pointed to, too
<G> ( although I detected his "what as asshole" glance and have regretted my
arrogant display ever since then .... but that is what real models can do to
you :-)

I know it's Winter, but catching the bug is better than even a good picture

[Danl]

"Peter Charles" > wrote in message
...

[snip]

> Nor do we spend enough time with diving females.

Well, sure, there's that. But your research doesn't seem to address this,
the much more interesting of the problems.

Danl

[Peter Charles]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:17:26 GMT, Tim Lysyk
> wrote:

>Peter Charles wrote:
>>
>>>"Peter Charles" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>Looking for photos of real caddis pupea of the more common genera like
>>>>Hydropsyche, Cheumatopsyche, and Rhyacophilia.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Search on "Sedge" pupae. that should turn up a bit more.
>>>
>>>TL
>>>MC
>>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestions guys, however, I'm hoping to find
>> entomology sites rather than fly tying sites so I can find the
>> pictures of the actual bugs rather than somebody's idea of what the
>> fly should be.
>
>try http://www.usask.ca/biology/skabugs/caddis/trichop.html . There is a
>picture of a pupae on this page. Pictures of caddis puape are not easy
>to come bu; there are a few in the aquatic insect texts I use. I think
>the photo on the above link is pretty representative...they look lke
>like fat larvae with stumpy wings anbd long legs.
>
>Tim Lysyk


Thanks Tim. This page has one good picture of a pupa but they don't
identify it. I figure some combination of ginger and brown works for
most pupa except the black species.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Peter Charles]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:36:32 GMT, "Thomas Littleton"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Charles" > wrote in message
...
>.
>> Sure the larval flies will take fish but a dead drifted pupa, fished
>> at the right depth will take a helluva lot more if it's fished during
>> an emergence.
>
>admitted, but has LaFontaine's sparkle pupae been improved upon??
>The colors might be tinkered with a bit, but a lot of what a fish seems to
>see of pupae is brightness and reflected light.
>>
>> Nor do we spend enough time with diving females. My very first trout
>> was taken on an EHC when I was dragging it behind me as I waded
>> upstream. Hardly the romantic image of one's first trout, but an
>> object lesson that cadddis don't behave like mayflies. I've since
>> taken a lot of fish on diving caddis.
>
>I'm convinced many,if not most, of the trout I've taken on traditional
>winged wets we due to trout looking for diving female caddis.
>>
>. It's worth doing
>> the research.
>
>It's damn near a religion to do so where I live.....the Tulpehocken is a
>tail water, and as such, has a lot of different caddis of all sizes.
>Imitation of them at several stages is a necessity to succeed much of the
>season.
>>
>> Last year, I put some effort into developing caddis wets with a bit of
>> success. It was enough to encourage further efforts into producing a
>> class of flies specifically targeting caddis emergence on either the
>> swung line or the sunk line. Hopefully they'll take a few fish this
>> year too.
>
>Have I unloaded any Submergers on you?? If not, remind me at Penn's.
>Or, as an old Jefferson Airplane song was titled, "Something of Value will
>come to you Shortly"(or, something like that). At any rate, I want you to
>give me an A/B trial with your technique versus your emerger and female
>diver imitations. You might like them.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
Nope, no submergers -- will run some trials if the Penns River Gods
smile on us.

I've fished winged wets and done OK on them but the fussiness of
getting good quill wings them have them survive the first fish, has
turned me off of the style. Still have some in my boxes that I dredge
out now and again.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Peter Charles]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:22:19 GMT, "Larry L"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Charles" > wrote
>
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestions guys, however, I'm hoping to find
>> entomology sites rather than fly tying sites so I can find the
>> pictures of the actual bugs rather than somebody's idea of what the
>> fly should be.
>>
>
>In my limited experience you are dead on track .... catching the real bug
>and using that as a model is FAR more satisfying than imitating an imitation
>.... but 99% of flies are developed the second way, varying existing
>patterns without ever looking at a bug.
>
>After your research, you'll likely end up with something similar to existing
>flies but you'll fish it with much more confidence ... the key ingredient of
>any pattern, imho.
>
>I'm just started on my own selection of "copied from real models" patterns,
>maybe 1/3 the bugs I fish over ... it is very worth the effort.
>
>The first was a Trico spinner 10 years ago. After a long not very
>successful day watching fish reject a store bought poly wing spinner on
>Silver Creek I broke down, seined some bugs, got out the magnifier and ...
>Whoa, Homer .. they don't look that much like the store bought pattern. I
>dug through my stuff, tied up a couple different experiments and the next
>day I hooked fish nearly at will, even broke one fish off then landed him
>later with my new pattern still stuck in his jaw and got my fly back. I
>got so damn arrogant that I stopped on Kilpatrick Bridge and told some guy
>to pick out a fish and I'd catch it ... did catch the one he pointed to, too
><G> ( although I detected his "what as asshole" glance and have regretted my
>arrogant display ever since then .... but that is what real models can do to
>you :-)
>
>I know it's Winter, but catching the bug is better than even a good picture
>

Ya, fun to do that eh? I had a gentleman on one nice Grand day, who
felt that it was necessary to give me detailed instructions on my dry
technique (or lack thereof). Anyway, the risers were mostly big creek
chubs in full maiting colours so I hung on a mini-brown instead and
after catching about a dozen browns in the space of about 15 minutes,
including the biggest fish in the pool that he had fished to
unsuccessfully, he eventually broke down and asked me what I was
using. Loved it!

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Peter Charles]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:10:34 -0800, "Danl" >
wrote:

>
>"Peter Charles" > wrote in message
...
>
>[snip]
>
>> Nor do we spend enough time with diving females.
>
>Well, sure, there's that. But your research doesn't seem to address this,
>the much more interesting of the problems.
>
>Danl
>
>
Noted: Just a matter of finding the right pool, eh? :)


Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Larry L]

"Peter Charles" > wrote

>
>
> Thanks Tim. This page has one good picture of a pupa but they don't
> identify it. I figure some combination of ginger and brown works for
> most pupa except the black species.
>


My experience, and I always feel compelled to point out that it's limited,
indicates that pale olive and a yellowish ginger produce best during
hydropsyche time. If you catch freshly emerged adults they tend towards
these colors ( sexes different colors? ) but most of what you'll snag from
streamside weeds will be brown bodied, they seem to dull up after a short
period.

Obviously, one of the biggest reasons for coming up with your own patterns
is to match LOCAL bugs better, so YMMV

You and Mike mention shrouded patterns. Mid-June the caddis some on strong
on the Firehole. Last year, a wide variety of circumstances, mainly a bad
knee, had me wanting to fish downstream on a swing. I loop dubbed a fat
pale green or pale ginger body of Antron blend and lightly brushed it to
make it rougher, applied a very sparse downwing style wing of similar
colored Antron yarn ( looped around thread for durability ) and combed it
out over the top of the body. This 'wing" then looks little like a wing,
it's very thin and reflective ... think negligee and you get the idea<G> .
Next somes a couple turns of partridge. Now add two or three wood duck
fibers on top and trailing backwards, rather long, cover the tiedown area
with some muskrat ( I bought a whole skin, so muskrat finds it's way into a
lot of my ties ... hares ear might be better ) I had better luck with
some tied with a black bead, but unweighted produced well, too. Treat the
thing with watershed ... fish it down with a reach cast, rather like a
spring creek dry presentation ... maintain just enough tension to feel it
then as it gets to the end of available line, let it swing.

This pattern produced VERY well at times, and was nearly useless at others.
This leads me to believe that trout were taking it "for" something when they
ate it, rather than just being attracted and thinking " might taste ok" My
assumption is they ate it as a hydropsyche pupa, but who knows. Fresh flies
alway worked better than soggy ones, and two or three casts without a take
was reason to change, or maybe FrogFanny.

On the West coast a Bird's Nest treated with powdered floatant and fished
with splitshot is very popular and effective. The artist in me
appreciates this approach ... i.e. actually having real bubbles on the fly
.... over the shiny stuff that looks like bubbles approach .... a mixture of
the two might be the best, and that is kinda what I tried for, get bubbles
to cling to a fly with a sparse amount of shiny stuff in it.

I'm glad to hear Mike say he saw what LaFontaine reported ... my own caddis
emerger efforts, and I've gotten a couple 'famous' tiers to admit the same
of theirs, come from trying to imagine what a pupa would look like with
bubbles because "they" say the pupa have bubbles. Until I actually see it
myself, I'll still wonder if the sparkle isn't more attractor than
imitation, I guess

[Mike Connor]

"Larry L" > wrote in message
...
>
<SNIP>
> I'm glad to hear Mike say he saw what LaFontaine reported ... my own
caddis
> emerger efforts, and I've gotten a couple 'famous' tiers to admit the same
> of theirs, come from trying to imagine what a pupa would look like with
> bubbles because "they" say the pupa have bubbles. Until I actually see
it
> myself, I'll still wonder if the sparkle isn't more attractor than
> imitation, I guess
>

It is not particularly difficult to observe this. You need a tank, ( quite a
small one will do, even a large jar), some larvae, and patience! One can
see the effects quite easily.

One also does not have to dive, ( I have not been diving for years, I feel
too old for it, and my bones don´t like the cold anyway!) one may use a
periscope. These are easily built from plastic pipe. Square pipe, such as
is used for central heating convection, or cooker hoods etc is better than
round, it is easier to fit the mirrors. You still need patience of course,
and a good idea where the beasts are ascending! :)

The effect is not so much one of isolated bubbles, but of one large silvery
bubble, which reflects the surroundings, and the basic colour may shine
through somewhat. When I first read Fontaines´s findings, I was very
excited, pleased that his results so closely corresponded to mine, and
immediately tied up the patterns, but unfortunately, they did not work very
well for me. My own patterns were better. I have no idea why this should be
so.

Lastly, when the pupae are ascending, they do it quite quickly ( at least
the species I managed to observe did), and they also hatch amazingly
quickly. The trout still pick them off, but they have to be quick, which
often means fast slashing takes. This of course also depends on depth and
speed of flow.

Sometimes movement ( a lift!) helps, sometimes it does not seem too.

The "shrouded" patterns were my best bets in most cases, and usually mixed
light brown ( hares ear colour!), with darker "wings" etc. Often it is very
difficult to determine which species is hatching, but the shrouded silver
patterns tend to catch anyway. In my opinion, on most European streams, the
caddis is far more important than mayflies, and also has a much broader
hatch window. This may also be true of some American streams, but of course
I am only guessing that.

Indeed, were I limited in any way to patterns, I would feel quite confident
on practically any stream, with a range of midges, and caddis.

TL
MC

[Larry L]

"Mike Connor" > wrote

>>
>
> It is not particularly difficult to observe this. You need a tank, ( quite
> a
> small one will do, even a large jar), some larvae, and patience! One can
> see the effects quite easily.
>

I've seen some video of the silver bubble taken in a tank. I always
wondered if an object lit from the side and photographed from the side would
look the same as one lit from above and observed from below ... closer to
trout's view. I guess I could try getting a tank, maybe I will. Most of
the fishing season I live in a travel trailer and an aquarium is out of the
question .... and I'm not sure how I'd cool and oxygenate a jar, either


>
> The effect is not so much one of isolated bubbles, but of one large
> silvery
> bubble, which reflects the surroundings, and the basic colour may shine
> through somewhat.

That was the impression I had ... rather like a waterboatman, which I have
seen


>When I first read Fontaines´s findings, I was very
> excited, pleased that his results so closely corresponded to mine, and
> immediately tied up the patterns, but unfortunately, they did not work
> very
> well for me.

I've never had good success with any of his caddis patterns either, and I'll
admit that is one reason I'm glad to hear your observations match his. Two
of my life's passions, dog training and fly fishing, both have lots of
literature, lots of pretend science, and lots of misinformation, passed on
for generations in many cases. In the dog training area I personally have
known 10 or 12 published authors, and their dogs, and can testify that only
one of them could consistently train a hungry dog to eat. Some of
LaFontaines ( not to speak ill of the dead ) theory's, in several of his
books, seem better able to sell books than qualify as science


>My own patterns were better. I have no idea why this should be
> so.
>

I know .... as I posted earlier .... confidence is THE most important
material in any pattern


>
> Indeed, were I limited in any way to patterns, I would feel quite
> confident
> on practically any stream, with a range of midges, and caddis.
>

The midges for sure ... my caddis knowledge and faith increases each season.
I have knee surgery soon and I'm hoping it will allow a little more variety
in the types of water I can painlessly fish. If so, I'm certain to spend
more time tossing caddis ties. BUT, and I'm sure you know this Mike, but
others may not ... 'soft' rivers like Silver Creek and the ranch section of
the HFork, famous for mayfly hatches, are often "tough" simply because the
anglers refuse to see the caddis everywhere ... a mistake trout don't make.

[Larry L]

"Peter Charles" > wrote

> Looking for photos of real caddis pupea of the more common genera like


http://www.pbase.com/michellemahood/image/29614395

all of her photos are damn good

[Peter Charles]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:25:35 GMT, "Larry L"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Charles" > wrote
>
>> Looking for photos of real caddis pupea of the more common genera like
>
>
>http://www.pbase.com/michellemahood/image/29614395
>
>all of her photos are damn good
>


Yup. Some really nice shots -- thanks.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Mike Connor]

"Larry L" > wrote in message
...
<SNIP>
>
> I've seen some video of the silver bubble taken in a tank. I always
> wondered if an object lit from the side and photographed from the side
would
> look the same as one lit from above and observed from below ... closer to
> trout's view. I guess I could try getting a tank, maybe I will. Most of
> the fishing season I live in a travel trailer and an aquarium is out of
the
> question .... and I'm not sure how I'd cool and oxygenate a jar, either
>
>
I just kept mine in a cool place. No cooling was necessary. If you only have
a few larvae in there, oxygenation is not a problem either, Just put a
reasonably sized plant in with them. Failing that, a "bubble stone" ( an
air pump from aquarium suppliers), is more than sufficient. No complex
set-up is necessary.

There is not much difference in the "live" ( on stream etc)observations, and
those made in the tank. One can arrange lighting to suit. It is much more
difficult to simulate running water properly, but even this can be done if
required.

For a suitable set-up see here;
http://www.flyanglersonline.com/features/worldwide/europe/part8.html

When observing, I just covered the tank sides except for the observation
window. The first few times one sees these things, one is amazed that some
patterns catch fish at all, as they really are nothing at all like the
naturals. In some cases, the movement may be responsible, and in others the
fish may well take these things for something else entirely. There is no
real way to know. Patterns which look and behave like the naturals are of
course a lot more successful.

After observing quite a few insects and things in streams, tanks and the
like. It became obvious to me why some apparently very "bright and gaudy"
tinsel flies caught so well. They are often much better imitations of the
natural when seen underwater. In my considered opinion, this is one of the
main reasons that "gold bead head" and similar flies are so successful. The
other is the weight! They get down to the fish better. Personally I don´t
like gold head patterns, ( mainly an aesthetics problem, difficult to
explain!:)), but there is no gainsaying there success.


> >
> > The effect is not so much one of isolated bubbles, but of one large
> > silvery
> > bubble, which reflects the surroundings, and the basic colour may shine
> > through somewhat.
>
> That was the impression I had ... rather like a waterboatman, which I have
> seen
>
>
> >When I first read Fontaines´s findings, I was very
> > excited, pleased that his results so closely corresponded to mine, and
> > immediately tied up the patterns, but unfortunately, they did not work
> > very
> > well for me.
>
> I've never had good success with any of his caddis patterns either, and
I'll
> admit that is one reason I'm glad to hear your observations match his.
Two
> of my life's passions, dog training and fly fishing, both have lots of
> literature, lots of pretend science, and lots of misinformation, passed on
> for generations in many cases. In the dog training area I personally
have
> known 10 or 12 published authors, and their dogs, and can testify that
only
> one of them could consistently train a hungry dog to eat. Some of
> LaFontaines ( not to speak ill of the dead ) theory's, in several of his
> books, seem better able to sell books than qualify as science
>

Well, in theory, and according to his observations, the patterns should be
very effective. I really don´t know why they didn´t work very well for me.
It may be a confidence thing, but I doubt it. ( although in the meantime, I
don´t have much confidence in them, and would use my own).For a while I was
worried that perhaps the materials were not exactly right, but this is not
the case. Most of the straeams I fished at the time were what I class as
"general" streams. No large specific hatches, not really very fertile,
plenty of fly life, but very mixed, with a predominance of caddis, and
terrestrials. No large concentrations of fish. In larger more fertile
streams, with clearly defined and observable hatches, then the situation
might be different. I really don´t know.

>
> >My own patterns were better. I have no idea why this should be
> > so.
> >
>
> I know .... as I posted earlier .... confidence is THE most important
> material in any pattern
>
>
> >
> > Indeed, were I limited in any way to patterns, I would feel quite
> > confident
> > on practically any stream, with a range of midges, and caddis.
> >
>
> The midges for sure ... my caddis knowledge and faith increases each
season.
> I have knee surgery soon and I'm hoping it will allow a little more
variety
> in the types of water I can painlessly fish. If so, I'm certain to spend
> more time tossing caddis ties. BUT, and I'm sure you know this Mike,
but
> others may not ... 'soft' rivers like Silver Creek and the ranch section
of
> the HFork, famous for mayfly hatches, are often "tough" simply because the
> anglers refuse to see the caddis everywhere ... a mistake trout don't
make.
>
>

It has always been rather surprising to me that many anglers ( here at
least!)do seem to ignore caddis and midges. This is an overhang from much
of the mainly available literature I think, although this has in the
meantime increased considerably both in scope and depth, which concentrates
on mayflies (ephemoptera), almost to the exclusion of all else. It has
little to do with fish preferences! Many anglers in Europe concentarted on
the "Chalk Stream" literature for a long time, and much of this is more or
less useless when applied to rough streams and the like, and many methods.
No sensible angler would carry just a box full of dry mayflies on such a
stream, the opportunities to fish them properly are simply too rare, but a
lot of people did, and still do. Some of course may simply wish to fish dry
flies, even where they are not the most effective method, merely because
they find it more enjoyable, and this is fair enough. Each to his own.

Usually, it takes quite a while before one has sufficient knowledge, skill,
and confidence, to try one´s own ideas successfully. At first one is more or
less obliged to use "standard" stuff, and not very skillfully either. There
is also a great deal of pontificating in regard to many things. This is
confusing to "normal" anglers, and they are often unsure what to believe at
all. Especially when things don´t work!

Regarding American waters, I only know what I have read, but it would not
surprise me at all to find that the same problems reign there! :)

There are anglers, and there are anglers. Some ( like myself for a long
time), become almost totally obsessed and absorbed, and want to know
everything about everything, use lots of flies and methods, read and think
about it a lot, others are happy with a handfull of flies and a fishing trip
two or three times a year, and of course every shade and colour in between!
It is not really sensible to assume that skill and knowledge levels are
evenly distributed.

With regard to some authors, I agree with you. Reading some works, it is
often quite hard to believe what they write. Especially when it does not
seem to work very well in practice

For me, after a relatively short while, angling was like chess, where the
rules may change at will, the pieces move differently, and the playing field
constantly changes. One may never deduce some of the rules, or the pieces,
or the playing field, but occasionally one has a great game! :)

TL
MC

[Scott Seidman]

Peter Charles > wrote in
:

>
> Looking for photos of real caddis pupea of the more common genera like
> Hydropsyche, Cheumatopsyche, and Rhyacophilia.
>
> I've done the Google image scan and only dredged up a few worthwhile
> candidates.
>
> The goal is to be able to reproduce the most important species as
> Yorkshire style wets for fishing on a swung line.
>
> Peter
>
> turn mailhot into hotmail to reply
>
> Visit The Streamer Page at
> http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

I think Ian Miller's book on the Grand has some good Hydorpsyche pupa in it

Scott

[Peter Charles]

On 24 Jan 2005 14:47:29 GMT, Scott Seidman
> wrote:

>Peter Charles > wrote in
:
>
>>
>> Looking for photos of real caddis pupea of the more common genera like
>> Hydropsyche, Cheumatopsyche, and Rhyacophilia.
>>
>> I've done the Google image scan and only dredged up a few worthwhile
>> candidates.
>>
>> The goal is to be able to reproduce the most important species as
>> Yorkshire style wets for fishing on a swung line.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> turn mailhot into hotmail to reply
>>
>> Visit The Streamer Page at
>> http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html
>
>I think Ian Miller's book on the Grand has some good Hydorpsyche pupa in it
>
>Scott


Ya, and I lent it to a certain related person, who shall remain
nameless, and now he can't remember what he did with it.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[DaveMohnsen]

"Scott Seidman" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> Peter Charles > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > Looking for photos of real caddis pupea of the more common genera like
> > Hydropsyche, Cheumatopsyche, and Rhyacophilia.
(stuff snipped)
> > Peter
Scott wrote:
> I think Ian Miller's book on the Grand has some good Hydorpsyche pupa in
it
> Scott

Hi All,
As some of you know I spend a lot of time lurking here. Simply, this has
been the most impressive threads I've seen. . . in a long while for me. I,
as many others, struggle with the caddis thing. And I catch a "lot" of fish
on various stages of caddis. ( but I still haven't figured it out to my
satisfaction. Not sure I ever will . . .but I'm always trying to come
closer) Thanks. And no . . .I don't have any answers.
BestWishes,
DaveMohnsen
Denver

[Jeff Marso]

Peter Charles > wrote in
:

>
> Looking for photos of real caddis pupea of the more common genera like
> Hydropsyche, Cheumatopsyche, and Rhyacophilia.
>

Try here maybe?

http://www.troutnut.com/naturals/caddisflies/index.php

[Peter Charles]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:24:46 GMT, Jeff Marso
> wrote:

>Peter Charles > wrote in
:
>
>>
>> Looking for photos of real caddis pupea of the more common genera like
>> Hydropsyche, Cheumatopsyche, and Rhyacophilia.
>>
>
>Try here maybe?
>
>http://www.troutnut.com/naturals/caddisflies/index.php


Thanks, had that one bookmarked already and had forgotten about it!!

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[DaveMohnsen]

"Jeff Marso" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Charles > wrote in
> :
>
Peter wrote:
> > Looking for photos of real caddis pupea of the more common genera like
> > Hydropsyche, Cheumatopsyche, and Rhyacophilia.
Jeff wrote:
> Try here maybe?
> http://www.troutnut.com/naturals/caddisflies/index.php

Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the link. I didn't have that one.
BestWishes,
DaveMohnsen
Denver

[Stephen Welsh]

Peter Charles > wrote in
:

>
> Looking for photos of real caddis pupea of the more common genera like
> Hydropsyche, Cheumatopsyche, and Rhyacophilia.
>
> I've done the Google image scan and only dredged up a few worthwhile
> candidates.
>
> The goal is to be able to reproduce the most important species as
> Yorkshire style wets for fishing on a swung line.
>
> Peter
>
> turn mailhot into hotmail to reply
>
> Visit The Streamer Page at
> http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Sorry Peter, no images. Even the recent Aus. Waterbug Book doesn't have
a pupa. An observation or two about the La Fontaine sparkle pupa pattern
styles I fish a lot, obs that may be useful for your wet designs.

For both deep and emergent pupa: flys that have a contrast between head
(darker head) and body colour work better.

Emergent: colour is largely irrelevant, size, body/head contrast, and a
sparsely tied wing are important.


FWIW,

Steve (who's money is on you coming up with a SH GRHE variant ;-)